4 ms·

Don't you just love when people suddenly "realize" the value of liberal-arts degrees (probably obtained by rich or connected colleagues) over the apparent total

Don't you just love when people suddenly "realize" the value of liberal-arts degrees (probably obtained by rich or connected colleagues) over the apparent total inability of engineering and science majors to think for themselves? /s No really, what gives people the impression that STEM majors can't think independently or well?

btdiehr 10y ago
It's only a point made to further justify their over priced diploma.
thesimpsons1022 10y ago
a decent percentage can't. trying to talk to some of my friends about political topics or history or anything else is frustrating because of their lack of knowledge. They know their major and they know about the video games they play but that is it. "who is joe Biden?" is a real question I've heard. many perform abysmally on critical reading portions of tests and can't form persuasive arguments effectively.
- stcredzero 10y ago
  This isn't limited to STEM majors!
- khedoros 10y ago
  Are they capable of critical thinking if you choose an area of discussion that they are knowledgeable about? Can they make clear, reasoned judgements within the limits of their knowledge? If they can't, then you have a point (which is really sad).
  - thesimpsons1022 10y ago
    yes I'd say so. problem is sometimes they may not know when they are arguing about something they are knowledgable about versus things they aren't. once again I'm talking from anecdotal experience and there are always exceptions. honestly the biggest problems I've seen from my peers(college aged and new grads) are superiority complexes and not realizing when they are out of the bounds of their knowledge base.
    - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
      Dunning-Kruger is something pretty much everyone lapses into sometimes.
- xufi 10y ago
  I can relate to you about the "Frustrating lack of knowledge aspect" I've tried to engage people who are in the Psychology department where I hang around, about other topics such as stuff like VR and they dont even care about it. No matter how much you dumb it down or try to make it sound interesting,
- burfog 10y ago
  To be fair, the VP is only very slightly more powerful than a typical senator, and less powerful than at least one of them. Do you know all the senators? The VP is also less powerful than a supreme court justice. The VP is also less powerful than the house majority leader. Things are less clear with governors, but I think the argument can be made that the VP is less powerful than the governors of California, Texas, Florida, New York, etc. Do you know those? Also, remember what Feynman said his dad taught him about knowing the names of birds. Memorizing names gives a false sense of knowledge.
Retra 10y ago
I've been in CS curricula where, were you to ask the students what they wanted, they would casually dismiss any liberal-arts subject as a waste of time. I've been in liberal arts curricula where the students themselves either think it is a waste of time (but that STEM is too hard) or that STEM is a waste of time because it doesn't appeal to their desire to "never be wrong" about anything. I have met very few people who look at either situation and see the breadth of information that exists and how valuable it can be to analyze and model.
superuser2 10y ago
A high quality liberal arts education is years of full-time deliberate practice, under constant feedback and guidance from experts. It's also exposure to the enormous volumes of arguments and ideas that have already been explored. Someone who has been working for years under the engineering culture and code review regime on an elite Google distributed systems team is probably going to write better code (at least in that domain) then someone who did a couple of side projects after reading the Rails tutorial.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  Well yes, of course. What I object to is equating "able to think critically and independently" with "has years of domain expertise in academic liberal-arts and humanities fields." The whole point of talking about "critical" or "independent" thinking is that they're supposed to be domain-general cognitive skills.
serge2k 10y ago
Hacker news seems to have a subset of people who believe CS degrees are not just useless, but perhaps actively harmful. At least that's how it seems whenever this comes up.
geebee 10y ago
I have this reaction when I read these articles as well. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who are dismissive of humanities majors, but I've experienced a real problem, over the course of my career, with people who want to put engineering and science majors in a box, defining them as people who can handle technical tasks but can't think independently outside their narrow and well defined technical skill set. I wonder if this attitude is more prevalent in the US, where people routinely say "you can do anything with a law degree", viewing law as a generalist degree, while viewing engineering or math as a narrow, task-specific degree with no real use outside those subjects… Although I double majored in English Literature and Math, I did notice the extent to which I would have been required to study humanities as a math major in college (UCSD) without the double major in lit. My general education requirements included a two year undergraduate survey course on world history, a required upper division sequence in a humanities field focusing on a specific region (such as a one year upper division sequence on European or Asian history), two years or proven competence in a foreign language, a year of arts (fine arts, art history, theater), and a minor in a humanities field. That may be a bit heavier than usual, but in general, math and science majors are required to take a great deal of humanities. The humanities majors, by contrast, had to take two courses in "math" which could be fulfilled with symbolic logic in the philosophy dept and stats for the social sciences (no calculus or even a modicum of advanced math required). The science could be fulfilled through "physics for humanities majors" and bio classes not intended for science track students. Again, that may be a bit light, but it's pretty consistent in US universities - humanities majors get away with minimal math and science, whereas science, engineering, and math majors must take substantial humanities coursework. One more thing - although the humanities were rigorous, the partiers were pretty much all humanities or social science majors. At least at UCSD, it was nearly impossible to survive in engineering or science as a "partier". Not to say these students were never at the parties, but they spent a lot more time in labs and the library, it was pretty clear. Those and the pre-meds. The humanities majors who got good grades were serious students, sure, but it's pretty clear to me that they didn't have to work anywhere near as hard for good grades (this was also my personal experience in upper division lit classes vs upper division math classes). This is why I think the most well-rounded students tend to be the STEM students. Not all STEM students are well rounded, many resent and minimize their humanities coursework, but the well-roundedness tends to be more deeply built into the curriculum for STEM than for humanities.

btdiehr 10y ago

It's only a point made to further justify their over priced diploma.

thesimpsons1022 10y ago

a decent percentage can't. trying to talk to some of my friends about political topics or history or anything else is frustrating because of their lack of knowledge. They know their major and they know about the video games they play but that is it. "who is joe Biden?" is a real question I've heard. many perform abysmally on critical reading portions of tests and can't form persuasive arguments effectively.

stcredzero 10y ago
This isn't limited to STEM majors!
khedoros 10y ago
Are they capable of critical thinking if you choose an area of discussion that they are knowledgeable about? Can they make clear, reasoned judgements within the limits of their knowledge? If they can't, then you have a point (which is really sad).
- thesimpsons1022 10y ago
  yes I'd say so. problem is sometimes they may not know when they are arguing about something they are knowledgable about versus things they aren't. once again I'm talking from anecdotal experience and there are always exceptions. honestly the biggest problems I've seen from my peers(college aged and new grads) are superiority complexes and not realizing when they are out of the bounds of their knowledge base.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    Dunning-Kruger is something pretty much everyone lapses into sometimes.
xufi 10y ago
I can relate to you about the "Frustrating lack of knowledge aspect" I've tried to engage people who are in the Psychology department where I hang around, about other topics such as stuff like VR and they dont even care about it. No matter how much you dumb it down or try to make it sound interesting,
burfog 10y ago
To be fair, the VP is only very slightly more powerful than a typical senator, and less powerful than at least one of them. Do you know all the senators? The VP is also less powerful than a supreme court justice. The VP is also less powerful than the house majority leader. Things are less clear with governors, but I think the argument can be made that the VP is less powerful than the governors of California, Texas, Florida, New York, etc. Do you know those? Also, remember what Feynman said his dad taught him about knowing the names of birds. Memorizing names gives a false sense of knowledge.

Retra 10y ago

I've been in CS curricula where, were you to ask the students what they wanted, they would casually dismiss any liberal-arts subject as a waste of time. I've been in liberal arts curricula where the students themselves either think it is a waste of time (but that STEM is too hard) or that STEM is a waste of time because it doesn't appeal to their desire to "never be wrong" about anything. I have met very few people who look at either situation and see the breadth of information that exists and how valuable it can be to analyze and model.

superuser2 10y ago

A high quality liberal arts education is years of full-time deliberate practice, under constant feedback and guidance from experts. It's also exposure to the enormous volumes of arguments and ideas that have already been explored. Someone who has been working for years under the engineering culture and code review regime on an elite Google distributed systems team is probably going to write better code (at least in that domain) then someone who did a couple of side projects after reading the Rails tutorial.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago
Well yes, of course. What I object to is equating "able to think critically and independently" with "has years of domain expertise in academic liberal-arts and humanities fields." The whole point of talking about "critical" or "independent" thinking is that they're supposed to be domain-general cognitive skills.

serge2k 10y ago

Hacker news seems to have a subset of people who believe CS degrees are not just useless, but perhaps actively harmful. At least that's how it seems whenever this comes up.

geebee 10y ago

I have this reaction when I read these articles as well. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who are dismissive of humanities majors, but I've experienced a real problem, over the course of my career, with people who want to put engineering and science majors in a box, defining them as people who can handle technical tasks but can't think independently outside their narrow and well defined technical skill set. I wonder if this attitude is more prevalent in the US, where people routinely say "you can do anything with a law degree", viewing law as a generalist degree, while viewing engineering or math as a narrow, task-specific degree with no real use outside those subjects… Although I double majored in English Literature and Math, I did notice the extent to which I would have been required to study humanities as a math major in college (UCSD) without the double major in lit. My general education requirements included a two year undergraduate survey course on world history, a required upper division sequence in a humanities field focusing on a specific region (such as a one year upper division sequence on European or Asian history), two years or proven competence in a foreign language, a year of arts (fine arts, art history, theater), and a minor in a humanities field. That may be a bit heavier than usual, but in general, math and science majors are required to take a great deal of humanities. The humanities majors, by contrast, had to take two courses in "math" which could be fulfilled with symbolic logic in the philosophy dept and stats for the social sciences (no calculus or even a modicum of advanced math required). The science could be fulfilled through "physics for humanities majors" and bio classes not intended for science track students. Again, that may be a bit light, but it's pretty consistent in US universities - humanities majors get away with minimal math and science, whereas science, engineering, and math majors must take substantial humanities coursework. One more thing - although the humanities were rigorous, the partiers were pretty much all humanities or social science majors. At least at UCSD, it was nearly impossible to survive in engineering or science as a "partier". Not to say these students were never at the parties, but they spent a lot more time in labs and the library, it was pretty clear. Those and the pre-meds. The humanities majors who got good grades were serious students, sure, but it's pretty clear to me that they didn't have to work anywhere near as hard for good grades (this was also my personal experience in upper division lit classes vs upper division math classes). This is why I think the most well-rounded students tend to be the STEM students. Not all STEM students are well rounded, many resent and minimize their humanities coursework, but the well-roundedness tends to be more deeply built into the curriculum for STEM than for humanities.